Saturday, February 23, 2013

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The picture above is my Take on the Issue Whats yours ???

NEWS BULLETIN:

Wisc. University Stands By Campaign To Teach Diversity By Writing ‘Unfair’ On White Students’ Faces

The
University of Wisconsin Duluth-Superior is standing by a controversial
campaign launched in 2012 to increase public awareness about racial
favoritism by writing “unfair” on students’ faces along with a variety
of grievances supposedly shared by minorities against Caucasians. The
university released a statement last week defending the project and
saying that the campaign is prepare to enter its second phase.
“The creative materials for the campaign’s initial phase, launched in
January 2012, were designed to be very provocative,” reads a statement released by the University.
“UW-Superior understood and expressed serious concern about the nature
of these materials. However, rather than abandon a well-intentioned
effort, UW-Superior chose to continue working with the other community
partners to help refocus the campaign’s future direction.”
The statement makes it clear that this initiative was not concocted
by the University alone. It was launched as part of a coalition effort
conceived by a group of community sponsors.
The statement accuses the media of misleading reports that suggest
the university would teach the values embodied in the “unfair campaign”
to students. They insist that UW Duluth-Superior does not teach “unfair”
in the classroom.
Finally, the University announced that “unfair” is entering a second
phase. “Racism: Ignore It And It Won’t Go Away,” was launched summer of
2012,” the statement reads. “At a recent series of community meetings,
residents of the community have already begun to chart its future
course.”
Not all the original partners are standing by the “unfair campaign.” Last year, the University of Minnesota ceased their support for the awareness effort calling it “divisive” and “alienating.”

OBAMA IS FREAKING KENYAN SCAREMONGER.. SEQUESTRATION WILL NOT LAY OFF FIRST RESPONDERS AND TEACHERS AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS.

UNFUCKING BELIEVABLE BULLSHIT FROM THE KENYAN... ALL THE DOOM AND GLOOM IS BULLSHIT PATRIOTS...

Fact: The sequester cuts domestic spending by only 2.5 cents on the dollar.

AS KRAUTHAMMER SIAD... This is the ridiculously hyped armageddon since the Mayan
calendar. In fact, it looks worse than the Mayan disaster. Look, this,
as you say, can be solved in a day, in an hour by allowing a transfer of
funds. It’s incredibly soluble, easily soluble. And the president is
the one who ought to propose it. He won’t, of course, because he is
looking for a fight and not a solution. But secondly, look at this in
perspective.

In terms of the gross domestic product of our
economy this is .03, it’s a third of 1% of our domestic economy. On the
domestic side, overall, it’s 2.5 cents on the dollar. And overall, on
the non-defense side, it’s a penny-and-a-half on the dollar of
reductions. Here we are with a debt of $16 trillion and the argument
today is if we cut a penny-and-a-half on non-defense spending in one
year it’s the end of the world. If so, we are hopelessly in debt and
we’re going to end up like Greece.

As I say....OBAMA had all those first
responder standing behind as useful idiot no brainer "props"!! Does any
of those fucking assholes in their pressed uniforms that the state and
local budgets pay for FIRST RESPONDERS ?? The Federal Budget
Sequestration has nothing to do with their budget cuts. OK ????????????
FREAKING USELESS STUPID SHITS... Posing behind the NEGRO as props...!

HEY ASSHOLES ON THE LEFT..

Firefighters are not paid with Federal Dollars School Teachers are not Paid with Federal Dollars Police are not paid with federal Dollars Firefighters are not paid with Federal Dollars

Just fat cat WASHINGTON BUREAUCRATS ARE !! LIKE THE TSA AND THE OTHER
SHITS AT ALL THE OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES WILL NOT GET A RAISE.... AND
THAT IS GOOD !!

BESIDES 2013 Cuts Are $44 Billion, Not $85 Billion in CUTS ON A 3.8 TRILLION BUDGET FROM WHICH WE ARE ALREADY BORROWING 46 Cents of every dollar to prop up the OBAMA/US HOUSE OF CARDS

courtesy John B. TaylorEconomist
John B. Taylor charts what sequestration will look like when it
comes to federal spending levels. The short version: A lot like
federal spending levels absent sequestration, which is widely
reported as reducing outlays in FY2013 by about
$85 billion or so.The first thing to note is that the $85 billion figure
that gets bandied about overstates this year's cuts due to
sequestration by about $40 billion. According
to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in its February 2013
report on the budget outlook, "Discretionary outlays
will drop by $35 billion and mandatory spending
will be reduced by $9 billion this year as a
direct result of those procedures
[sequestration]; additional reductions in outlays
attributable to the cuts in 2013 funding will
occur in later years."You got that? When President Obama scaremongers about
national parks closing and TSA lines getting longer - and when
Republicans bitch and moan about the military having to
set up bake sales to buy bombers - they are already misstating
basic facts. The sequester will slice $44 billion off this year's
budget, not $85 billion.CBO figures that total spending in FY2013 will come
to
around $3.55 trillion (see table 1-1), or roughly
the same as FY2012, when it came to $3.53 trillion. In 2014,
assuming the sequester happens, CBO figures total spending will be
$3.6 trillion before it jacks up considerably to $3.8 trillion in
2015 and then up to over $4 trillion in 2016. As Taylor's chart
(above, right) shows, this isn't that very much different at all
than what would happen absent sequestration. Taylor favors keeping
the sequester but add the sensible proviso that the president and
the Congress should allow all affected agencies to the flexibility
"to adjust their budgets within the overall sequester totals."
That blunts the criticism that the sequestration is itself too
blunt an instrument.courtesy John B. TaylorYou'll note in Taylor's chart a line marked
"pro-growth reform," which is substantially lower than the the CBO
baseline or spending "without sequester." Taylor explains that's
the amount of spending that would happen if the government pursuied
a "fiscal consolidation strategy" that reduced the debt-to-GDP
ratio in a way that would return spending as a share of the economy
to pre-crisis levels.
In work done with
John Cogan, Volker Wieland, Tobias Cwik, Taylor simulates the
effects of cutting spending on the larger economy and finds
that

The positive short run economic effects occur even in the
model with price and wage rigidities for several reasons including
that the lower spending (as a share of GDP) can reduce expected tax
rates and raise permanent after-tax income compared to what would
be expected under current policy. This stimulates consumption. The
gradual nature of the government spending reduction, which allows
time for private spending to adjust, avoids the negative aggregate
demand effects that traditional Keynesian models
emphasize.

How does cutting government spending spur consumption and
growth? After all, if we count most government spending in GDP,
significant cuts to government spending will by definition shrink
the economy, right? Taylor notes the incremental but believable
cuts in spending signal to businesses and consumers that massive
tax hikes or truly disruptive reductions in spending are less
likely to happen. As a result, economic activity proceeds. An added
bonus is that misallocated resources - more likely via government
spending than by private actors - get freed up as well.That gap on the right-hand side of the chart (Figure 1,
above right) between "Baseline" and "Fiscal Consolidation Strategy"
is essentially another way of marking the huge price exacted on
future economic growth by high levels of government spending and
debt. As Veronique de Rugy and I have noted in various articles
(like
this one and
this one), research by Carmen Reinhart, Vincent Reinhart, and
Kenneth Rogoff argues that maintaining levels of gross debt greater
than 90 percent of GDP for five years at a time reduces future
economic growth by as much as 1 percentage point a year for 20-plus
years. We've been in such a "debt overhang" situation since 2008
and the cumulative effect over the coming years will likely be
substantial. In the chart to the right, the blue line represents
expected economic growth when gross debt is lower than 90 percent
of GDP and the red line shows reduced growth due to debt
overhang.Who exactly is up for having 24 percent less stuff in, say,
2036? Start building it into your retirement plans, because that's
where we're heading if spending and debt patterns keep going the
way they're headed. As the CBO illustrates it, there's really no
scenario under current trends in which revenue catches up to
spending.

SO LETS HAVE A REVOLUTION TO CLEAN UP THE COUNTRY OF THESE FEAR MONGERING ANTI AMERICAN PIECES OF CRAP!!!

ABOUT THIS BLOG

I AM A FEROCIOUS CONSERVATIVE
CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WINGER UNDERGROUND... IN EXILE IN AMERICA !
I AM AN UNRELENTING FEROCIOUS CONSERVATIVE:
Ferocious = (fə-rō'shəs) “Marked by unrelenting intensity; to the extreme”
Conservative = (kən-sûr'və-tĭz'əm) “A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions and distrust of government activism”
My page is a place for Unrelenting Ferocious Activist Conservatives across our country to gather and discuss and plan our next moves. I am tired of sitting around and playing “nice” while the Progressive Liberals have spent the last 50 years attacking and denigrating our values and our beliefs while our side sits around and tries real hard to be accommodating and “Nice”! (Political Correctness!) NO MORE!!
AS AN UNRELENTING FEROCIOUS CONSERVATIVES. I WILL ATTACK BACK!